It is the National Enquirer, so take it for what it's worth. But they were right on the John Edwards story.

Quote:

Reports out of Washington, DC: PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit.

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

Analyzing the reports, a top DC insider said the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

Sounds like the right wing grasping at straws once again. Float a story, get an eye witness 6+ years later, offer them a million bucks to talk, and hope whatever they say sticks.

Sad how low some people stoop to try and bring down the opposition. Also sad how at least with Watergate it was the Washington Post doing the reporting. A credible institution. With this its the National Enquirer. Give me a break.

Sounds like the right wing grasping at straws once again. Float a story, get an eye witness 6+ years later, offer them a million bucks to talk, and hope whatever they say sticks.

Sad how low some people stoop to try and bring down the opposition. Also sad how at least with Watergate it was the Washington Post doing the reporting. A credible institution. With this its the National Enquirer. Give me a break.

Your post is just as credible as a story from the National Enquirer. The right wing floating a story?

So in your mind it is completely and entirely impossible that this story could be true?

Sounds like the right wing grasping at straws once again. Float a story, get an eye witness 6+ years later, offer them a million bucks to talk, and hope whatever they say sticks.

Sad how low some people stoop to try and bring down the opposition. Also sad how at least with Watergate it was the Washington Post doing the reporting. A credible institution. With this its the National Enquirer. Give me a break.

Your post is just as credible as a story from the National Enquirer. The right wing floating a story?

So in your mind it is completely and entirely impossible that this story could be true?

I have no idea if the story is true or not. Although from the info provided I would lean towards it not being true. I mean if you gotta find a witness 6 years later and offer them $1mill to speak and the people offering the money are openly labled as "Anti-Obama"...I mean come on!

And I'm giving an opinion on a message board on a Miami Dolphins fan-site. The National Enquirer is selling this and trying to pass it off as fact and/or news. LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE THERE BUDDY! If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell ya.

What happens on his own time is his business. While I have a low opinion of the character of people who cheat on their spouse, I think this is an issue between Obama and his wife (if true). My problem with the Clinton-Lewinski affair is that it was done on the job and in the Oval office. Personally if he gets a hummer from an assistant, that is between him, his lover and his wife. However, if your on the job, and in your office (the most powerful office in the world), there should be repercussions for such activity. I can assure you that every job I have ever had in my life, if I were caught having sex on the job, I would have been fired and without recourse. So in the case of Clinton I was for Congressional intervention. With Obama, if this were true, being in a hotel room on his own time, I really don't care.

What happens on his own time is his business. While I have a low opinion of the character of people who cheat on their spouse, I think this is an issue between Obama and his wife (if true). My problem with the Clinton-Lewinski affair is that it was done on the job and in the Oval office. Personally if he gets a hummer from an assistant, that is between him, his lover and his wife. However, if your on the job, and in your office (the most powerful office in the world), there should be repercussions for such activity. I can assure you that every job I have ever had in my life, if I were caught having sex on the job, I would have been fired and without recourse. So in the case of Clinton I was for Congressional intervention. With Obama, if this were true, being in a hotel room on his own time, I really don't care.

Who has mentioned anything about Congressional intervention?

He does however answer to the American people, and his character should be an issue.

Someone brought Clinton into the mix. Clinton was impeached, I merely was stating the differences between the Clinton and Obama (assuming it were true) affairs. I wasn't trying to insinuate that if this affair were true that he would be impeached. After rereading the story though, I now realize this incident happened 6 years ago, which in that case, completely invalidates my post. I thought that the affair had happened recently when I posted my reply.

Nice job by me for getting the details down before replying huh? face-palm

Someone brought Clinton into the mix. Clinton was impeached, I merely was stating the differences between the Clinton and Obama (assuming it were true) affairs. I wasn't trying to insinuate that if this affair were true that he would be impeached. After rereading the story though, I now realize this incident happened 6 years ago, which in that case, completely invalidates my post. I thought that the affair had happened recently when I posted my reply.

Nice job by me for getting the details down before replying huh? face-palm

Phin - I thought the same thing when I posted. I did not realize we were talking 6 years ago until I started seeing some of the replies.

Someone brought Clinton into the mix. Clinton was impeached, I merely was stating the differences between the Clinton and Obama (assuming it were true) affairs. I wasn't trying to insinuate that if this affair were true that he would be impeached. After rereading the story though, I now realize this incident happened 6 years ago, which in that case, completely invalidates my post. I thought that the affair had happened recently when I posted my reply.

Nice job by me for getting the details down before replying huh? face-palm

Congress intervened with Clinton because he committed purjery, not adultery.

Democrats didn't hesitate to bring out a story about Bush being arrested in the 70s two nights before the 2004 election.

HUH? What does that have to do with anything in this rumor (story)?

As much as your right wing conspiracy has to do with this story.

If I'm all over the map, you're involved in intradimensional travel.

No not really. I mean the people putting up the $1 mill are a group labeled as "ANTI-OBAMA". I hardly doubt that is his "base" or "Left Wing Support Group". So saying its a right wing conspiracy (which I never really said it was a conspiracy, thanks for putting words in my mouth) is logical and probably true.

You bringing up a legitamate George W Bush story broken by a legitamate News Organization in Maine has what to do with this story????????? Answer: NOTHING!

You are grasping at straws. I don't get it. This is an Obama story and you are trying to tie in Bush somewhow? Why? For what? How they are they same? It has nothing to do with this story. One story is broken by the National Enquirer and is a rumor with no substance to back it up, the other was broken by a legit news station with actual facts and evidence. There is no comparison at all to be made. Keep trying through, its fun to watch and get a chuckle over!

No not really. I mean the people putting up the $1 mill are a group labeled as "ANTI-OBAMA".

So you choose not to believe the National Enquirer when they break report a story of Obama having an alleged affair, but you don't question when they say an ANTI-OBAMA group is offering $1 million for a tape proving this.

It sounds to me like you only question or believe whatever fits in with your ideological perspective.

Quote:

I hardly doubt that is his "base" or "Left Wing Support Group". So saying its a right wing conspiracy (which I never really said it was a conspiracy, thanks for putting words in my mouth) is logical and probably true.

It could be an "Independent/Moderate" conspiracy as well since his favorability ratings with this group is rather low. Let's just go making assumptions without hard facts at our convenience.

Quote:

You bringing up a legitamate George W Bush story broken by a legitamate News Organization in Maine has what to do with this story????????? Answer: NOTHING!

Even "legitimate" news organizations have proven to operate like tabloids recently. Almost every single major news outlet is doing more editorializing than hard reporting these days, both on the left and the right. For example, Dan Rather decided to report on the "Bush National Guard" story and later had to retire because he followed his own personal agenda rather than objective journalism. And let's not even talk about the major news networks and their obvious ideological slants.

Quote:

You are grasping at straws.

That's funny coming from the guy who is picking and choosing which assumptions to believe and which to dismiss based on his ideological views.

Quote:

This is an Obama story and you are trying to tie in Bush somewhow? Why? For what? How they are they same?

I only brought up the Bush story because you jumped into this thread criticizing the "right wing" as perpetrating this, as if somehow the left would never engage in such smear campaigns. Nevermind the fact that the Clintons are the masters of it and were trying to do it to Obama during most of the Democrat primaries in 2007-2008.

If anyone is bringing up things that have nothing to do with the story, it's you. So why get so bent out of shape when others follow your lead?

Couldn't be more incorrect on so many levels. I didn't hijack this thread by bringing Bush into it. YOU DID!

And I never blamed the "right wing".....I said this sounds like a right wing thing. Just floating an idea out there and a reasonable one since I doubt the left-wing would float this story. Nobody is blaming anybody and nobody is getting bent out of shape except for yourself.

And you don't even know my ideological views. I mean I have made a strong stance of coming out against a National Enquirer rumor that has no substance or evidence to back it up. I'm way out on a limb there stomping for one party or another. Please!!

This isn't even a story. It's a national enquirer tabloid rumor. You want to compare it to real news. This is the publication that reports about little green men living with a family in Kansas and that type of stuff. I mean if you get your news from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and base your political opinions on their publication well then I don't know what to tell you and I think you should maybe expand your boundries and reading.

Couldn't be more incorrect on so many levels. I didn't hijack this thread by bringing Bush into it. YOU DID!

First of all, it's my thread. I can take it anywhere I please.

Second of all, this isn't sinking in but I'll try one last time. You brought ideology into it, not me. Me bringing in Bush was in response to you bringing in ideology.

Quote:

And I never blamed the "right wing".....I said this sounds like a right wing thing.

That sounds like an accusation to me on your part.

Quote:

Nobody is blaming anybody and nobody is getting bent out of shape except for yourself.

I'm getting so bent out of shape that you have the site owner telling you to stop being so emotional. Got it. LOL....

Quote:

This is the publication that reports about little green men living with a family in Kansas and that type of stuff.

I think you have your publications confused. The National Enquirer does report rumors, many of them turn out to be untrue, but it has never reported stuff about aliens. You're confusing the National Enquirer with Weekly World News.... HUGE difference between the two.

And again, the National Enquirer got the John Edwards story right on every count. So sometimes their rumor-based journalism does hit on some facts.

Quote:

I mean if you get your news from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and base your political opinions on their publication well then I don't know what to tell you and I think you should maybe expand your boundries and reading.

Where have I stated anything to indicate that I believe this story is hard news? As a matter of fact, here is a piece of my first post in this thread.

sounds like you know a little too much about the national enquirer. like i said if that is your source of political news then i don't know what to tell ya. i go to more reputable places to get my news. fox news, cnn,. wall st journal...etc.

At least when I give an opinion on something, I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand....

Quote:

like i said if that is your source of political news

IF is a conditional statement. The condition does not apply in this case. I read from plenty of different sources. If you want to have a head to head on who is more informed on the issues, I'm more than willing to wipe the floor with you.

At least when I give an opinion on something, I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand....

Quote:

like i said if that is your source of political news

IF is a conditional statement. The condition does not apply in this case. I read from plenty of different sources. If you want to have a head to head on who is more informed on the issues, I'm more than willing to wipe the floor with you.

Oh I know what I am talking about. And I don't use sources like the national enquirer to form opinions or get my news.

Rich, are you referring to the story back in 2000 when Bush's DUI was exposed at the last minute? Or is there another story you are referring to?

If that is the one, do you really think its analogous to the Obama story?

exactly!! someone gets it! Rich is grasping at straws. bringing up a Bush story from 2000 that has nothnig to do with anything. running to the national enquirer for news reports hoping to bring down a president on a 6 year old story.

Rich, are you referring to the story back in 2000 when Bush's DUI was exposed at the last minute? Or is there another story you are referring to?

If that is the one, do you really think its analogous to the Obama story?

exactly!! someone gets it! Rich is grasping at straws. bringing up a Bush story from 2000 that has nothnig to do with anything. running to the national enquirer for news reports hoping to bring down a president on a 6 year old story.

Must just be people so blinded by their own political ideology that don't get what he said. He was comparing the tactics of both parties to smear the other. You apparently are so stuck on the details of the story that you miss the point of what he is saying. Or is it that you refuse to acknowledge that both parties use smear tactics? Which is it?

Its a pretty common tactic that when someone brings up an analogous story to prove a point that makes others uncomfortable, it is much easier to attack the details of their analogy than to exam the very real issues they bring up.

Rich, are you referring to the story back in 2000 when Bush's DUI was exposed at the last minute? Or is there another story you are referring to?

If that is the one, do you really think its analogous to the Obama story?

exactly!! someone gets it! Rich is grasping at straws. bringing up a Bush story from 2000 that has nothnig to do with anything. running to the national enquirer for news reports hoping to bring down a president on a 6 year old story.

Must just be people so blinded by their own political ideology that don't get what he said. He was comparing the tactics of both parties to smear the other. You apparently are so stuck on the details of the story that you miss the point of what he is saying. Or is it that you refuse to acknowledge that both parties use smear tactics? Which is it?

Its a pretty common tactic that when someone brings up an analogous story to prove a point that makes others uncomfortable, it is much easier to attack the details of their analogy than to exam the very real issues they bring up.

Of course both parties use smear tactics to attack the other. Nobody ever said otherwise. But you can't compare a story by a legit news organization like that Main television station ran on Bush. To some 6 year old rumor with no evidence that is run in the National Enquirer.

Nobody ever said that one party was perfect the other was horrible. But its a horrible analogy given. One that doesn't even make sense with the topic at hand.